No, but it is a closed list and the public materials are, as you noted, apparently sanitized. What is the reasonable inference?
I have no idea. It just looks like bizarre crypticness to me; like there’s some inside joke that I’m not in on.
If it is a closed list, then why is it being posted to LW? And especially, why is it being posted without acknowledgment of the fact that the source was a closed list?
The fact that the list itself is closed is not a good argument by itself not to post the link given that the link is to a public and easily accessible website. However, it probably would have made sense of it had included the request not to the post to the blog.
The post should have included an explanation of the lack of information (e.g. “the instructor posted this to a private mailing list that I subscribe to, and does not wish himself or his institution to be identified”—if this is in fact the case; otherwise, the information should have been included).
I have no idea. It just looks like bizarre crypticness to me; like there’s some inside joke that I’m not in on.
If it is a closed list, then why is it being posted to LW? And especially, why is it being posted without acknowledgment of the fact that the source was a closed list?
Conspicuous secrecy is rude.
The fact that the list itself is closed is not a good argument by itself not to post the link given that the link is to a public and easily accessible website. However, it probably would have made sense of it had included the request not to the post to the blog.
The post should have included an explanation of the lack of information (e.g. “the instructor posted this to a private mailing list that I subscribe to, and does not wish himself or his institution to be identified”—if this is in fact the case; otherwise, the information should have been included).